The Rumour Thread

[EntMan]

2 minutes ago, Mutton said:

I don't understand the point of those monstrous rampages. As SoB, you're never going to be the one multi-charging anything, so why waste your action to make you and a monster fight last, if someone happens to run their monster into combat with two of your units? The wrestling move, while cool in theory, also seems just flat worse. What are the odds you'll be able to throw a monster off an objective into the perfect spot where they can't just pile back onto it? And D3 mortals doesn't make up for the -1 to hit.

I'm no professional SoB player, but the fact that the rampages have significant downsides makes me think you'd never choose to use them over the generic ones. Maybe I'm missing something.

Now add to the rule that you can slam dunk the monster onto a nearby enemy unit and do damage and I'll buy into this!

[Ogregut]

6 minutes ago, Mutton said:

I don't understand the point of those monstrous rampages. As SoB, you're never going to be the one multi-charging anything, so why waste your action to make you and a monster fight last, if someone happens to run their monster into combat with two of your units? The wrestling move, while cool in theory, also seems just flat worse. What are the odds you'll be able to throw a monster off an objective into the perfect spot where they can't just pile back onto it? And D3 mortals doesn't make up for the -1 to hit.

I'm no professional SoB player, but the fact that the rampages have significant downsides makes me think you'd never choose to use them over the generic ones. Maybe I'm missing something.

The gargants base is big so you can move the monster from in front of you to behind you which could take it off an objective or move it into pile in range of other units. It's nuanced for sure but can be useful. 

[CommissarRotke]

2 hours ago, Beliman said:

Commanders deck for AoS.

If they're doing AOS in flippin MTG then we better be getting an AOS Total War...

[Ganigumo]

18 minutes ago, Mutton said:

I don't understand the point of those monstrous rampages. As SoB, you're never going to be the one multi-charging anything, so why waste your action to make you and a monster fight last, if someone happens to run their monster into combat with two of your units? The wrestling move, while cool in theory, also seems just flat worse. What are the odds you'll be able to throw a monster off an objective into the perfect spot where they can't just pile back onto it? And D3 mortals doesn't make up for the -1 to hit.

I'm no professional SoB player, but the fact that the rampages have significant downsides makes me think you'd never choose to use them over the generic ones. Maybe I'm missing something.

Gargants always should've been a Timmy army. In fact they should've been the most Timmy army in the game, and the previous book mangled that terribly. Honestly Gargants probably could be running around with a 35% winrate and Timmy would be happy as long as his gargants get to smash stuff up every game.
These rules aren't that powerful, but they're cool and fun which really appeal to the Timmy archetype.
Like the one rampage lets you suplex a monster, sure you could do it to get off an objective, but flipping something like a mawkrusha or archaon into a tag team of 3 baby gargants is awesome.
Or you could hold a monster back while the little dudes beat him up.

Not every rule needs to be aimed at being competitive.

[Flippy]

31 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Idk why the only thing driving the hobby forward for many people seems to be the craving to spent money on new releases.

sounds healthy.

I find that strange as well. Ironically, it seems that people who focus more on the rules, the meta and the list building have more healthy approach to the hobby.

[EntMan]

9 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Gargants always should've been a Timmy army. In fact they should've been the most Timmy army in the game, and the previous book mangled that terribly. Honestly Gargants probably could be running around with a 35% winrate and Timmy would be happy as long as his gargants get to smash stuff up every game.
These rules aren't that powerful, but they're cool and fun which really appeal to the Timmy archetype.
Like the one rampage lets you suplex a monster, sure you could do it to get off an objective, but flipping something like a mawkrusha or archaon into a tag team of 3 baby gargants is awesome.
Or you could hold a monster back while the little dudes beat him up.

Not every rule needs to be aimed at being competitive.

Again I show my lack of knowledge, bit what is a Timmy Army?

[NauticalSoup]

Just now, EntMan said:

Again I show my lack of knowledge, bit what is a Timmy Army?

Timmy is a term from the Magic the Gathering community. Often it is derogatory but the original intent of the term was to describe someone who 'plays for fun', mostly a term used to differentiate them from competitive players (which MTG calls 'Spikes'). So here he's using it to describe an army that is made for reasons other than to be the most face-crushing meta netlist you can put together.

There's a third category but it's rarely referenced because most people in it are still probably a one of the previous two.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

2 minutes ago, Flippy said:

I find that strange as well. Ironically, it seems that people who focus more on the rules, the meta and the list building have more healthy approach to the hobby.

There is certainly something to be said about not falling into the trap of deriving your satisfaction in this hobby solely from buying new models you will probably never paint. I think that is a common psychological trap people fall into since the immediate gratification of buying a new thing is easier to get and more addictive than the slow burn of painting your army.

But still, even though I think that I have a fairly healthy relationship with the hobby in this respect (barely any grey plastic, nothing unbuilt), I am feelinga bit unexcited about the state of current AoS offerings. I think most people got into this game for the models, and if new models don't get announced that doesn't exactly build hype. The narrative is also not really moving foreward that much as far as I can tell. Recognizing this doesn't have to mean that you have an unhealty relationship with the game.

[Mutton]

11 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Not every rule needs to be aimed at being competitive.

I'd argue they're not good or fun either. What's fun about making you and the opponent strike last? Or losing -1 to hit? Now add @EntMan's suggestion and make them able to slam a monster into an enemy unit--THAT'S fun.

[pnkdth]

3 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

There is certainly something to be said about not falling into the trap of deriving your satisfaction in this hobby solely from buying new models you will probably never paint. I think that is a common psychological trap people fall into since the immediate gratification of buying a new thing is easier to get and more addictive than the slow burn of painting your army.

But still, even though I think that I have a fairly healthy relationship with the hobby in this respect (barely any grey plastic, nothing unbuilt), I am feelinga bit unexcited about the state of current AoS offerings. I think most people got into this game for the models, and if new models don't get announced that doesn't exactly build hype. The narrative is also not really moving foreward that much as far as I can tell. Recognizing this doesn't have to mean that you have an unhealty relationship with the game.

Exactly, seeing multiple battletome releases which aren't much more than warscroll changes and some reshuffling in allegiance abilities doesn't exactly make me jump with excitement. Ogors, for example, didn't just lack rules but need a model refresh as well. All the hype for this army is dead for me and I'm not expecting much more for FEC either since it seems GW's attention is focused on a few armies in AoS.

In other words, I do not feel like they deserve to charge a premium if they do not deliver a premium product for every single faction.

[Ganigumo]

10 minutes ago, EntMan said:

Again I show my lack of knowledge, bit what is a Timmy Army?

 

6 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

Timmy is a term from the Magic the Gathering community. Often it is derogatory but the original intent of the term was to describe someone who 'plays for fun', mostly a term used to differentiate them from competitive players (which MTG calls 'Spikes'). So here he's using it to describe an army that is made for reasons other than to be the most face-crushing meta netlist you can put together.

There's a third category but it's rarely referenced because most people in it are still probably a one of the previous two.

Timmy is one of 3 psychographic profiles coined by the magic dev team that describe player types.
Timmy likes big creatures and exciting explosive plays.
Johnny is the creative type who likes discovering cool combos and interactions and like to win his own way. They like to express themselves through the game.
Spike is the power gamer. primarily driven by their competitive nature and desire to win.

You can be a mix of the types, but they cover different psychographic profiles in players.

[Ganigumo]

12 minutes ago, Mutton said:

I'd argue they're not good or fun either. What's fun about making you and the opponent strike last? Or losing -1 to hit? Now add @EntMan's suggestion and make them able to slam a monster into an enemy unit--THAT'S fun.

The fun part is the narrative around the ability, and the rules themselves aren't a terrible representation of those narratives.

[EonChao]

Just now, Ganigumo said:

 

Timmy is one of 3 psychographic profiles coined by the magic dev team that describe player types.
Timmy likes big creatures and exciting explosive plays.
Johnny is the creative type who likes discovering cool combos and interactions and like to win his own way. They like to express themselves through the game.
Spike is the power gamer. primarily driven by their competitive nature and desire to win.

You can be a mix of the types, but they cover different psychographic profiles in players.

It should be noted that in addition to Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny, and Spike there's also Vorthos (flavour based interest in a game) and Mel (mechanics based interest in a game). Players are rarely just one of the five.

[NauticalSoup]

2 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

 

Timmy is one of 3 psychographic profiles coined by the magic dev team that describe player types.
Timmy likes big creatures and exciting explosive plays.
Johnny is the creative type who likes discovering cool combos and interactions and like to win his own way. They like to express themselves through the game.
Spike is the power gamer. primarily driven by their competitive nature and desire to win.

You can be a mix of the types, but they cover different psychographic profiles in players.

That was certainly Rosewater's intent but they were always wishy-washy categories that don't capture any useful information.

In common parlance Timmy usually just means 'casual' and Spike just means 'comp'. Don't think anyone ever uses Johnny since it's just Timmy 1.5 lol

[Ganigumo]

1 minute ago, EonChao said:

It should be noted that in addition to Timmy/Tammy, Johnny/Jenny, and Spike there's also Vorthos (flavour based interest in a game) and Mel (mechanics based interest in a game). Players are rarely just one of the five.

Vorthos/Mel aren't really a player type though. Most players are either Vorthos/Mel, since otherwise it means they're not interested in the game. You also don't need to play the game at all if you're a vorthos (we see that in 40k a lot). They describe a different axis.

Just now, NauticalSoup said:

That was certainly Rosewater's intent but they were always wishy-washy categories that don't capture any useful information.

In common parlance Timmy usually just means 'casual' and Spike just means 'comp'. Don't think anyone ever uses Johnny since it's just Timmy 1.5 lol

I've never seen them used that way in my circles. Maybe thats just because we're all familiar with the terms.

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

10 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

That was certainly Rosewater's intent but they were always wishy-washy categories that don't capture any useful information.

In common parlance Timmy usually just means 'casual' and Spike just means 'comp'. Don't think anyone ever uses Johnny since it's just Timmy 1.5 lol

I don't know, when I see people talk about Timmy, Johnny and Spike I usually see them mention all three and usually it's in the context of game design. I find when people just want to talk about casual/competitive they just say casual and competitive.

Especially in the context of games like AoS where self-expression has another dimension (painting/modelling) I think it's good not to disregard Johnny. It's a pretty valuable category when it comes to understanding why people are attracted to AoS/certain armies.

[NauticalSoup]

When I was playing it was only in the company of Spikes so at least where I was Timmy only came up as the punchline to a joke. Johnny only seems to come up in high minded discussions of game concepts as you say, but that to me suggests it isn't all that useful. It would actually make more sense if it were a minis game concept because of the modeling/painting stuff, MTG has this weird 'he's the combo guy' but also Spike is the combo guy... so Johnny's combos are uh... more complex but also bad, I guess?

I understand the appeal I just have a strong dislike of pseudopsychological buckets, saw way too many of them when I worked in HR and they're all based on junk science. We just have a strong innate desire to recognize patterns even where they don't necessarily exist- and it's not like Rosewater knew anything about the psychology of players anyway, he just made it up from whole cloth and like many things he's said it became gospel just because he was the one who said it.

Edit: also I'm not making up the casual/comp thing! Spikes is literally the name of the competitive sub for MTG, definitely that's a way the terms get used 

Edited October 7, 2022 by NauticalSoup

[EntMan]

I love this forum because I don't have to try and look like I already know everything, i can ask questions like these and they are answered with informative kindness 😀

[EonChao]

49 minutes ago, Ganigumo said:

Vorthos/Mel aren't really a player type though. Most players are either Vorthos/Mel, since otherwise it means they're not interested in the game. You also don't need to play the game at all if you're a vorthos (we see that in 40k a lot). They describe a different axis.

I've never seen them used that way in my circles. Maybe thats just because we're all familiar with the terms.

Vorthos and Mel are very much player types, the separate axis is very much relating to how you play with the hobby as much as how a spike can enjoy the peak of competitive play as a spectator and without actually playing.

 

Also for those interested the AoS and Blood Bowl Secret Lairs (minus their secret cards) have been revealed. Both are reprints of existing cards with the AoS one having some really good reprints in (Blind Obedience, Najeela the Blade Blossom and Scourge of the Throne are all really solid value wise)

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said:

It would actually make more sense if it were a minis game concept because of the modeling/painting stuff, MTG has this weird 'he's the combo guy' but also Spike is the combo guy... so Johnny's combos are uh... more complex but also bad, I guess?

I would have to disagree here: Spike might like to combo off in MtG if that's the strong deck that wins games, but Spike would be just as happy winning with a really value efficient goodstuff deck. The difference is that Johnny would be bored with a deck that is not "clever" in any way, just really mechanically efficient.

Personally, even though Timmy/Johnny/Spike is not necessarily well rooted in psychology or exhaustive, I still think these terms are pretty useful if only for self-identification. It's good vocabulary to have when you want to talk about what appeals to you about a game. Of course, in the context of competitive discussion Timmy and Spike will mostly come up, because they map fairly directly to casual and competitive (although not exactly, describing someone as a Timmy/Spike player makes sense).

[Sahrial]

Making the star Drake red was

a choice.

Something feels weird about Stormcast being Boros. White for sure. But like… I dunno I kinda feel like artifact/colorless plus white more than a secondary color, but if you had to have one, blue more than red.

every Stormcast soldier should be a “artifact creature - human soldier”

Edited October 7, 2022 by Sahrial

[NauticalSoup]

4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Spike might like to combo off in MtG if that's the strong deck that wins games, but Spike would be just as happy winning with a really value efficient goodstuff deck. The difference is that Johnny would be bored with a deck that is not "clever" in any way, just really mechanically efficient.

I mean this is just so specific as to be meaningless, no? This isn't a category of players it's like- a specific guy Rosewater played EDH with. At least that's how it sounds to me.

Super duper ultra tangent though so I'll leave it here we don't have to agree and I've said my piece

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

1 minute ago, NauticalSoup said:

I mean this is just so specific as to be meaningless, no? This isn't a category of players it's like- a specific guy Rosewater played EDH with. At least that's how it sounds to me.

Super duper ultra tangent though so I'll leave it here we don't have to agree and I've said my piece

For sure. I want to say one last thing before I get back on topic, though. I think for non-competitive players of fairly skill-rewarding games (games without huge random swings), Johnny is probably the most common player type. People who want to do clever stuff but don't primarily care about winning or competition are, in my opinion, exactly the kinds of people drawn to complex strategy games with a casual player base. I think the difference between the guy who just wants to show up, roll some dice and have a good time (Timmy) and the guy who spends forever tayloring his list to do very specific things that are uniquely his own (Johnny) is real enough that the distinction is useful.

8 minutes ago, Sahrial said:

Making the star Drake red was

a choice.

Something feels weird about Stormcast being Boros. White for sure. But like… I dunno I kinda feel like artifact/colorless plus white more than a secondary color, but if you had to have one, blue more than red.

every Stormcast soldier should be a “artifact creature - human soldier”

Now you have me thinking about colour identities of AoS armies again. I will have to make a contentious list at some point.

[Twisted Firaun]

I’m sorry but does anyone have any rumors regarding AOS, TOW, or even 40K? Not that I don’t like pseudo-philosophical debates about the hobby….. but this is the rumor thread.

[EntMan]

3 minutes ago, Twisted Firaun said:

I’m sorry but does anyone have any rumors regarding AOS, TOW, or even 40K? Not that I don’t like pseudo-philosophical debates about the hobby….. but this is the rumor thread.

You say you want rumours but scroll up and you'll see pseudo-philosophical debate about do we even agree what a rumour is?